Reasonable Suspicion - Probable Cause

[Sgt. Slaughter]

You rely on Wikipedia?

If that was directed at me, I did not use Wikipedia for a source.

I can post links that prove you wrong, but I'm not allowed to. I haven't made enough post yet.

Even if you could, it wouldn't prove anything.

Do go to the Supreme Court of the United States of America and try to find it. You will not. You will only find one reference in the entire database to RS: If it must exist for a stop at the border. (The answer, of course, is no.)

Do stop wasting out time. I just found another case where SCOTUS defines reasonable suspicion. Your research skills suck, as do those of your "professor".

[Samuel]

I feel a Sam's click coming on.

Happy to oblige Sir!

[Parminio]

My God in heaven...

You guys most be the most unsecure folks on the planet. I never said that Citicop. I said that your experience wasn't the deciding factor unless it could convince (for the umpteenth time) a "man of reasonble caution".

For instance: Why is it that officers video a sobriety test of someone who is obviously drunk out of his mind? It's simple: The officers experience and knowledge isn't enough. He must convice a "man of reasonable caution" that the man was three sheets to the wind, drunk out of his mind, gone west, had the helm of the Cutty Sark preparing to jive, falling out of his tree, etc.

What is sad, in my personal opinion, is that an officers word isn't enough. But I tell you...looking at some of these "give me money, we're not here to teach you, we are not here to help you" post, I begin to wonder more and more.

Maybe that attitude alone is why you have to jump through hoops. Maybe that's why a great many departments are now only hiring (or soon going to only hire) people with degrees.

Citicop, I respect the hell out of you guys. Coming into this thing, the only thing I hated about cops was that they didn't pull the trigger fast enough. But now? My God man...I just don't know anymore. In less than 2 topics, my entire attitude has changed.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

For instance: Why is it that officers video a sobriety test of someone who is obviously drunk out of his mind? It's simple: The officers experience and knowledge isn't enough. He must convice a "man of reasonable caution" that the man was three sheets to the wind, drunk out of his mind, gone west, had the helm of the Cutty Sark preparing to jive, falling out of his tree, etc.

Wrong. It's because juries are dumbed down and feel they need videographic evidence. Until recently, PLENTY of cases were won for decades without said evidence.

What is sad, in my personal opinion, is that an officers word isn't enough.

That's an indictment of society as a whole and a completely different thread.

But I tell you...looking at some of these "give me money, we're not here to teach you, we are not here to help you" post, I begin to wonder more and more.

May be time for you to go read the TOS which talks about what this forum is for.

Maybe that attitude alone is why you have to jump through hoops. Maybe that's why a great many departments are now only hiring (or soon going to only hire) people with degrees.

No. It's because we have people that take a CJ class and think 1 semester qualifies them to work the street. Book smarts do NOT = street smarts.

[Cat_Doc]

Does anyone else suppose we won't be able to arrest, prosecute and convict murderers anymore because we didn't document the homicide on video? Is that what “they” are teaching our children nowadays when they take a class in criminal justice?

My daughter, while attending college, would come home on occasion and speak of some b.s. nonsense that her professor had mentioned in the idealistic classroom setting. I would tell her the professor was out of touch with reality, full of crap, and most likely never pushed a black & white at dark-thirty in their entire life. I would tell her how it worked in the real world, but to play along with the instructor to get the good grade. Ha, that is reality.

[Citicop]

Your attitude, Paramino, is the problem.

You said:

It means, according to the Supreme Court, that what an officer thinks is pretty much moot.

That is not true. I have posted their own words that say it DOES make a difference. You were wrong about that, among other things.

You came here and asked a question. When you disagreed with the answer you got, you forcefully argued your point against many people who do in fact know better than you.

The people we are trying to convince when we tape a DWI stop is the jury. It has nothing to do with needing more for Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause. I have made a TON of DWI cases with no video and convinced a jury based on my testimony. I don't even need Field Sobriety for Probable Cause, let alone reasonable suspicion.

I am a DWI instructor, FYI (in case you are inclined to tell me I am wrong here as well).

The fact is that this area IS to help you. But telling us (who do it every day) that you (who read ONE CHAPTER on the subject) know this better than we do is silly and will get you this kind of response. Many of your responses were childish and defensive, and you came across as though you were the intellectual who was going to set all us backward cops straight. This may not have been true, but that's what it seemed like to everyone but you.


--

I am going to shut this down because I think this has surpassed anything approaching usefulness.

If you really have a desire to learn from us, tone down the "I took a class and I know this as well as you do" attitude, stick around, and ask some more questions.

-Citicop.